Driver Must Request UIM Coverage
Read full article at https://lnkd.in/ggKkFa7J, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7Fdj2kF and at https://lnkd.in/g5HS52JW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4748
Kimberly Rogers appealed from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Lyft, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, and Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In Kimberly Rogers v. Erie Insurance Exchange; Allstate Insurance Company; and LYFT, Inc., No. 2023-CA-0447-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 19, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Kimberly Rogers was a driver for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and was involved in an automobile accident with another motor vehicle. Rogers apparently suffered substantial physical injuries. The driver of the other motor vehicle negligently caused the accident and was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm paid Rogers the policy’s liability coverage limits. At the time of the accident, Rogers’ vehicle was insured by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), and Lyft carried motor vehicle insurance with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Both Erie and Allstate denied Rogers’ claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
Rogers sued Erie, Allstate, and Lyft hoping one would provide UIM coverage.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Lyft is required by 601 KAR [Kentucky Administrative Regulations] 1:113 § 3(1) to maintain primary automobile insurance that provides coverage both for a driver who is logged into the Lyft application and for drivers engaged in a prearranged ride. Lyft is also required by 601 KAR 1:113 § 3(2) to maintain liability insurance, PIP [Personal Injury Protection] coverage, UM [Uninsured Motorist] coverage and UIM coverage for drivers who are logged into the Lyft application, who are not engaged in a prearranged ride.
Allstate insures Lyft under a policy of insurance that Defendant Allstate represents only provides the coverage required by KRS § 281.655(12) as a prearranged ride liability policy, which Allstate contends applies only when Plaintiff was carrying persons for Defendant Lyft.
Defendant Erie insures Plaintiff under a policy which it contends excludes UIM coverage for all transportation network company activities, whether as part of a pre-trip liability policy or prearranged ride liability policy.
To the extent that Defendant Allstate is contractually obligated to provide UIM coverage to Lyft drivers engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the extent that Plaintiff was engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendant Allstate is required to provide UIM coverage to the Plaintiff in an amount of at least $50,000. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff was not engaged in Defendant Lyft’s operations at the time of the collision Erie is required to provide UIM coverage to Plaintiff, not to exceed the limits of Plaintiff’s policy with Defendant Erie.
ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals rejected Rogers’ contention that an ambiguity exists as to the exception to the UIM exclusion contained in the policy. Under its plain terms, the exception is triggered only if the automobile was “identified for Business use as indicated on the ‘Declarations.'” Rogers seizes upon the language on the declaration page that identified the use of her vehicle as “To work 10-14.” However, “To work” is commonly utilized to indicate that the insured drives the motor vehicle to and from work. Rogers admitted that her vehicle was not rated for business use as required under the exception to the UIM exclusion. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Rogers was not entitled to UIM coverage under her policy of insurance.
Rogers additionally asserted that public policy requires Lyft and/or Erie to provide UIM coverage. Generally, UIM exclusions in motor vehicle insurance policies do not offend the public policy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. UIM coverage is only required insurance coverage when the insured requests such coverage. The insured simply may disclose the business use of her motor vehicle and request UIM coverage rated for such use. She did not.
In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of Lyft, Allstate, and Erie and the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance, much to the surprise of some, is just a contract. It must be interpreted as written. UM and UIM coverage is available in the State of Kentucky if the insured requests the coverage and provides the insurer with information concerning the risk taken. Using a vehicle for Lyft is akin to the operation of a taxi cab and is not akin to a person who drives to and from work. By not properly asking for the coverage and advising the insurer of the risk, Ms. Rogers had no UM/UIM coverage.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
